MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. I have nothing to begin
with this Friday, so I will go straight to your questions.

Q Could you give us a readout of the Vice President's meeting
with the South Korean official?

MR. McCLELLAN: With Foreign Minister Ban?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: They had a good discussion about a wide range of
issues. The two reaffirmed our shared view that North Korea must end
its nuclear weapon program, and that's really the extent of the
readout.

Q Any details on how to get --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Foreign Minister is here in town for some
visits, previously scheduled visit. This was something that was
scheduled over a week ago, and I know that he's expected to be visiting
with Secretary Rice, I believe early next week.

Q Scott, rumors* about an attempted coupe against Kim Jong and
North Korea -- anything on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard anything about it.

Q Did the Vice President reiterate the U.S. position that there
could be no one-on-one talks with North Korea, that it has to be --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think all parties in the region recognize that
they have a stake in North Korea ending its nuclear weapons program.
This is a regional matter that affects the countries in the region, and
we've made very clear our view. It is a view shared by the other
parties to the talks. The six-party talks are the way to resolve this
matter in a peaceful and diplomatic way.

We've also made very clear that North Korea has ample opportunity
to visit directly with us in the context of the six-party talks. And
they have had ample opportunity in the past to do so.

Q So let me just follow up, if I may. So there are no
circumstances or conditions under which the U.S. would talk one-on-one
with North Korea?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, the problem is we've been down that road
before. The 1994 agreed framework was the road that we went down
before. It was a bilateral approach between the United States and
North Korea. North Korea violated that agreement and continued to
pursue nuclear weapons. As I mentioned, all parties in the region
believe they have a stake in making sure that there is a de-nuclearized
Korean Peninsula. That's why we're working with all parties in the
region to say to North Korea: You need to come back to the six-party
talks; you need to permanently dismantle your nuclear weapons program;
that's the way to realize better relations with the international
community and end your isolation.

Q But as you're surely aware, the critics -- including some of
the people who participated in the previous administration's talks with
North Korea -- are suggesting that the six-party talks are simply a
recipe for ensuring that nothing ever gets done because of China's very
difficult position, not to mention that of the other parties.

MR. McCLELLAN: China has played a helpful role. Japan has played
a helpful role. South Korea has played a helpful role. Russia has
played a helpful role. I think you're hearing from all those nations
that they believe North Korea needs to come back to the talks so we can
talk about the way forward on the proposal that we outlined at the last
round of talks.

This was a forward-looking proposal that provides for North Korea
to realize better relations with the international community if they
make a commitment to dismantle and eliminate its nuclear weapons
program.

Q Scott, what are the consequences of not coming back to talks,
and North Korea being free to continue its nuclear program and develop
more nuclear weapons? Is there -- there is no hindrance on their
development of these --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out the development of nuclear
weapons was beginning when they were violating the '94 agreed
framework. And in terms of "what-ifs," we are in consultation with
other parties to the talks. We will continue to be in consultation
with them, and we would obviously discuss those matters with the other
parties to the talks. But I think North Korea -- we've heard a lot of
rhetoric from them in the past. They tend to say things from time to
time and ramp up the rhetoric from time to time. We've also seen
probably some mixed signals coming from them over the last couple of
days, with some saying that their intention is to come back to the
talks, and others talking about that they've simply suspended the
talks.

Q But there's no impediment right now for them to do anything to
continue their program, is that right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that all parties in the region are making
it clear to North Korea that it needs to end its nuclear weapons
program, that it needs to permanently dismantle that program and
eliminate it for good.

Now, they're also making it clear to them that they only deepen
their isolation from the rest of the world when they take actions and
express words like they have over the last couple of days. We've made
it very clear that no one has an interest in attacking North Korea.
That's very clear to North Korea. Our interest is moving forward on
the proposal that was outlined at the last round of talks. It is a
proposal that addresses the concerns of all parties, and it provides a
way for North Korea to become a part -- a better -- to be a participant
of the international community if they will commit to dismantling and
eliminating their nuclear weapons program.

Q So why does the White House think it's ratcheting it up now?
Why is North Korea doing that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would never try to guess their motives, but we've
seen this from time to time. It's nothing new.

Q Scott, why -- why did the President cut down on food stamps
and child care and a thousand other -- well, not that many -- social
causes, and so forth, and give huge tax cuts to the rich again?

MR. McCLELLAN: He didn't.

Q He didn't cut down on food stamps and child care, and so
forth?

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of the President's compassion agenda and
providing a safety net for those in need, we have made a strong
commitment to helping those who are in need. And I think you should
look at our budget and look at what we've done, because I disagree with
your characterization. You might want to look at our budget to see the
specifics. We've continued to support those programs that are
providing aid to those in need.

Q And everyone who has been getting food stamps --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you've got a specific, I'm glad to talk about
it, but you should go back and look at the briefing earlier this week
by our OMB Director, and he addressed these issues. And your
characterization is just --

Q In such a vague way and he didn't really hit them.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, John.

Q Scott, last year during the 9/11 Commission, one of the key
points it looked into was whether the administration had taken the al
Qaeda threat seriously enough before 9/11. Condoleezza Rice, in
defending the administration, wrote an op/ed piece in The Washington
Post, in which she said, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the
administration" -- meaning from the Clinton administration when the
Bush administration came in. Now the sort of infamous Richard Clarke
memo from January 25, 2001, has been released over to the National
Archives center. And in there, there is an attachment of a strategy --
the 2000 year strategy of the Clinton administration. It's entitled,
"Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al
Qaeda Status and Prospects." Was Dr. Rice telling the truth?

MR. McCLELLAN: Was she telling -- yes, she addressed this matter
previously. I'll be glad to take a look at that. I haven't taken a
look at it, John.

Q She said there was no plan turned over from the previous
administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll be glad to take a look at what you
have. I've not seen it at this point. But, remember, we made it very
clear during that time period that al Qaeda was a threat we took very
seriously. You have to look at the actions that we took during that
time period.

You also have to remember that we were not on war footing prior to
September 11th. We are now a nation at war on terrorism. The
President is leading the effort to go after those who seek to do harm
to America. We're staying on the offensive and bringing them to
justice. We're also working to advance freedom and democracy in the
world to make the world a safer and better place, and we will continue
to pursue that agenda.

But I know of no reason for anything to change from what we've said
previously. And I'll be glad to take a look at that document that you
cite. I haven't seen it.

Q Basically, you are saying there was no plan turned over -- if
you're sticking with Dr. Rice's op-ed, then you're saying there was no
Clinton plan turned over?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no reason to believe anything changes from
what we've said previously, and I will be glad to take a look at that
document that you cite, because I have not seen it.

Q Scott, you referred previously to the diplomatic strategy on
North Korea, I'd like to turn you to the question of assessing the
nature of the threat. During the Iraq experience, the President was
out several times a week describing his concerns about what would
happen if Saddam Hussein obtained a weapon, or, secondly, what would
happen if he exported nuclear materials.

If you believe, as American intelligence seems to now indicate,
that the North Koreans have several, and if you believe that they may
have been caught in at least one case of export, can you explain to us
why this threat would be any less urgent than the Iraqi threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q And why the President hasn't been out discussing it on regular
occasion?

MR. McCLELLAN: Iraq was unique, that's why. And we talked about
that previously, about why they were unique and how they had defied
the international community for some 12 years, and how they had defied
resolution after resolution. It was Saddam Hussein's choice to make,
and he chose continued defiance. Iraq was a country that had invaded
its neighbors, and --

Q North Korea has not defied the international community?
Because this -- as I recall, this all started in the President's
father's administration --

MR. McCLELLAN: I was giving you the reasons behind the Iraq threat
and why it was unique. And we stated that very clearly before.

We believe that the best way forward to resolving the nuclear issue
in North Korea is the six-party talks. It is an issue that impacts all
of North Korea's neighbors. They all have a stake in the issue. They
all recognize the importance of a nuclear-free peninsula in North
Korea. And that's why they're all urging North Korea to come back to
the talks. We have a proposal on the table that is the way forward,
and we believe it's important to continue to pursue the peaceful
diplomatic route for resolving this matter through the six-party
talks.

Q Scott, I asked you to assess a threat, and you came back and
told me about a future diplomatic way forward. Putting aside how you
solve it, could you address the comparative threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you asked me why North Korea -- you asked me
why North Korea and Iraq were different --

Q I'm asking if North Korea, with weapons and with a record of
export is --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I pointed out that we talked about the
situation with Iraq. Iraq was a unique situation, particularly in a
post-September 11th world. We've talked about that on numerous
occasions. And in terms of North Korea, we've been talking about it in
this room. We remain concerned about North Korea's pursuit of nuclear
weapons, and their proliferation activities. We've expressed that
about how that is a destabilizing force in the region, and that's why
we're working through the six-party talks to address the matter. And
all parties in the region are sending a clear, unified message to North
Korea about the way forward, and the way to resolve this, in a way that
addresses everybody's concerns.

Q So it's your position that Iraq, because it defied the United
Nations -- but may or may not have had the weapons -- was a greater
threat than North Korea, which may not have had the record of U.N.
resolutions, but has the weapons? That's --

MR. McCLELLAN: I stated the reason for Iraq, and why it was a
unique threat, and why we addressed it. It was Saddam Hussein's choice
to make, in the end -- he chose continued defiance. We've been working
through the six-party talks. We've made some progress. It's progress
that we were able to get North Korea to sit down and talk with the
other parties in the region about how to address this issue in a way
that North Korea agrees to eliminate its nuclear weapons program, and a
way North Korea can realize better relations in return. The proposal
spells out some very clear, practical steps. It's a comprehensive
approach to resolving the matter. And that's why it's important for
North Korea to come back to the talks, so that they do not continue to
isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

Q Since North Korea joined the talks, which is now a long time
ago, what have been the positive results that have come of the talks?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think it is, first of all. The fact that
they were sitting --

Q No, I'm asking what positive results have come out of the
talks since North Korea --

MR. McCLELLAN: You said, "A long time ago," and I disagree with
that. First of all, you have to remember that the bilateral approach
of the previous administration did not work. North Korea violated that
agreement. They did choose to defy the international community in that
sense. That's why this President thought that the best way to approach
this was through the six-party talks. And the fact that North Korea
sat down and talked with all its neighbors in the region is important
progress in itself. And we were -- we continue consultations with the
parties in the region. From those talks, we developed a comprehensive,
practical proposal for the way forward to resolving the matter. We
presented that proposal at the last round of talks last summer. And
now we want to talk about how we move forward on that proposal in a
substantive way.

So that's what I'm referring to when I'm talking about progress.
That's important progress, Keith.

Q My understanding is that the progress of North Korea sitting
down was -- that was about a year-and-a-half ago. Since then, the only
progress that you're citing is proposals. What concrete results have
come of the talks with North Korea?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. A comprehensive proposal that we put on
the table, Keith, and we discussed it at the last round of talks. And
North Korea took that proposal and -- so that they could talk about
it. We talked about it with all the parties in the region. It's a
proposal that we believe -- that we believe addresses all the issues
concerning the parties. It's a forward-looking proposal, and it's a
way to resolve this in a peaceful and diplomatic way. That was
important progress through the last round of talks.

Now, we're ready to talk about how we can move forward on that
proposal in a substantive way. And all the parties in the region,
you've heard from them over the last couple of days. They sent a very
clear message about their concern and about their desire to see North
Korea to come back to those talks. Those are parties that have a
direct stake in what is going on in that region. And we're all sending
a unified message.

The fact that the President has sat down and visited with leader
after leader in the region, and all of us agree on the same approach
for resolving this matter, that is significant progress, Keith, because
North Korea chose to violate the '94 agreement and continue to pursue
nuclear weapons over the course of the last decade or more. That's why
we need to resolve this issue now, through the six-party talks.

Q Has North Korea built nuclear weapons while this proposal has
been on the table?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, our intelligence community has spoken to
that issue, in terms of their assessment and their belief regarding
North Korean nuclear weapons. That's why I pointed out to you, as
well, that it was the '94 framework that North Korea violated, and they
were continuing to pursue nuclear weapons during that time period, when
they had made a previous agreement with the United States through the
bilateral approach. It takes time to develop nuclear weapons, as you
are well aware.

Q Scott, the President used a word today that we don't often
hear from him, saying he would veto any Medicare legislation that came
his way -- if there is such legislation -- that would weaken the
prescription drug benefit, in his view. Did he have something
specific, either someone in Congress specific in mind or some proposal
specific in mind when he said that today?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was making a general statement. There are some
who would like to undermine the reforms we've put in place to expand
benefits for America's seniors and make health care more affordable for
our seniors. The President was making very clear to America's seniors
that we stand with you, we made a promise to you, and we're going to
keep that promise. And he's not going to let anybody take away what we
have provided to you that you waited on for way too long.

Q Is it just -- is his veto threat just on the parameters -- the
benefits of the prescription drug benefit? Senators McCain and
Kennedy, for example, have talked about legislation that would revisit
the issue of bulk purchasing by the government. Others have talked
about revisiting the reimportation issue in a way inconsistent with the
test laid out by the task force of the administration. If you touch
those things, but not prescription drug benefit, is that a veto --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said the President was making a
general statement. I'm not trying to get into individual, specific
ideas that people have talked about, but you've heard from a number of
people who are seeking to undermine the Medicare reforms we put in
place for America's seniors that provides them with prescription drug
coverage, that provides them with more preventive care, so that they
can have the care they need, when they need it, and have more
affordable health care. Seniors will realize significant savings
through this. The President was making a very strong statement that we
made a promise to you; we're going to keep our word, we're not going to
let anybody undermine these important reforms that we are working on
putting in place right now.

Q Would he consider revisiting the bulk purchasing issue, for
example, undermining the reforms in place?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've made our views very clear when it comes to
that. I think that all you need to do is look at the Congressional
Budget Office, and their analysis. They looked at the issue and
pointed out that there would not be any significant savings through
that approach; that the approach that was put in place, where private
plans can negotiate those prices is an approach that is going to
provide seniors with significant savings. And we believe that's the
way to move forward on implementing these reforms.

It's historic legislation that modernizes Medicare for the first
time in its history. It provides greater competition and choice for
seniors. It gives them more options and better benefits. It gives
them the kind of preventive care they need to prevent costly surgeries
from happening in the first place. As the President said earlier
today, it made no sense why Medicare wasn't providing some of that
coverage and bringing competition and choice into Medicare. We'll
improve the quality of care, make it more affordable, give seniors what
they have waiting on for far too long, and it will help provide savings
to Medicare in the long-run.

Q To just sort of refine on John's point, then, Scott. These are
Republican majorities we're talking about on Capitol Hill, so when the
President is issuing a veto threat, presumably he's saying to members
of his own party, he's going to fight their desires to scale back the
growth of this project. How does that play for this Republican
President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that you've seen some Democrats in recent
weeks talking about undermining these reforms. And in terms of
Congress, we're working very closely with the congressional leadership
to address the important priorities for the American people. The
congressional leadership, I think, recognizes the important of putting
these reforms in place. The Medicare reform legislation enjoyed some
strong support. And the President believes now is the time to focus on
putting those reforms in place. And we're going to continue to work
with Congress to make health care more affordable and more accessible
for all Americans.

Q So it's a veto threat to congressional Democrats?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the President was making a general
statement, Carl. I know you're trying to get me to get into specific
people. The President made a general statement. And you heard from
members of the Democratic Party earlier this week who really were
trying to move forward on an attempt to undermine the reforms that we
put in place. We're not going to let that happen. The President was
making a general statement that these reforms are something that we
promised to America's seniors, and we're not going to let people take
them away.

Q So, Scott, you're saying that this is nothing new for North Korea, and you've basically seen this before. So how has that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying; it's a matter of fact. I think
it's been documented that they've said this on -- this kind of rhetoric
on a number of occasions.

Q So how have you gotten the process back on track in the past?
And how will you get it back on track this time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why we're consulting with other
parties in the region now. The Foreign Minister of South Korea was
here in town. The Vice President met with him earlier today. He will
be meeting with Secretary Rice, as well. And we will continue to
consult with other parties in the region. There is -- there have been
instances before where North Korea said they weren't going to come back
to talks.

But North Korea made a commitment to work through the talks. And
the talks are the way forward for all of us to address the nuclear
issue in North Korea and for North Korea to lessen its isolation from
the rest of the world.

Q But what, specifically, do you say to, you know, the parties
in the process?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the other parties, as you're well aware, have
discussions with North Korea from time to time, as well. And they're
all sending the same message to North Korea about the importance of
coming back to the talks, and the importance of North Korea eliminating
its nuclear weapons program. They all want a nuclear-free peninsula.
They've made that very clear. They all have expressed their support
for the six-party talks.

The President met with some of those leaders as recently as his
last trip to Chile, and had good discussions with a number of those
leaders. He's remained in contact with some of leaders more recently.
I know he had a good conversation with President Roh just last week.
So we'll continue to consult with our allies and to consult with those
in the region about how to move forward on this issue.

Q Scott, for the last couple of years you've been dealing with
both North Korea and Iran on their nuclear policies in multilateral
forums. From both we've heard nothing but conflicting statements,
contradictory statements. What is there out there that can give anyone
any hope that these talks have any chance of success with either
party?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, on North Korea, if North Korea
did refuse to return to the talks, then we would discuss the next steps
with other parties to the talks. But everybody involved in those talks
is saying to North Korea, come back to the talks, because this is the
best way to address this issue and to address any concerns you may
have, as well.

With regards to Iran, I think we've made it very clear that Iran
made some commitments -- they made some commitments to the
international community. We expect them to live up to their
obligations. We've also made it clear that they need to know that
they're -- if they continue to defy those commitments, then it is a
matter that we believe should go to the Security Council for discussion
about next steps. And Iran has said that they would abide by their
international commitments. We will see; we want to see through their
actions, not their words. We appreciate the efforts of our European
friends to address this issue. We're pursuing diplomatic approaches on
both these matters. And there's important progress being made on both
when you have the international community saying with a single voice:
This needs to stop, you need to live up to your commitments.

Q Are we going to pursue a date certain in terms of Iran having
to show good faith before we go to the U.N.?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to continue to consult with our
European friends about the matter.

Q On Social Security, can I ask the "where are we" question?
The President made his proposal in the State of the Union speech, we've
been traveling, he's got more travel next week. And he repeatedly
says, if you've got good ideas, come forward. Does he now want
lawmakers to come forward with specific legislation, or is he preparing
to do that, himself?

MR. McCLELLAN: He welcomes all ideas, he has made that very clear,
with the exception of increasing the payroll tax. That's something the
President has made very clear. He's going to talk more about this in
his radio address tomorrow. We are also talking directly with the
American people about the serious problems facing Social Security. You
have survey after survey showing that the American people recognize
that Social Security faces major problems, and that we need to address
it. We need to make sure that Social Security sees no changes for
today's retirees. It's fiscally sound for today's retirees, and it's
working. But it won't be for tomorrow's, and that's why we need to
strengthen it for our children and grandchildren.

And so the President is going to continue reaching out to the
American people and talking about the problems facing Social Security,
and the reason why we need to act now to strengthen it, because it's
something that only gets worse over time. In 2018, you're going to
have the system paying out more than it's taken in. And each year
after that, the shortfall only grows worse. And then in 2042, of
course, it becomes bankrupt.

So the President is going to continue emphasizing the problem
facing Social Security, he's going to continue to reach out to members
of Congress, as well. He's had a number of meetings, he will continue
to have a series of meetings to talk about ideas for solving this
problem. Part of the solution is personal accounts, so that younger
workers can realize a greater rate of return. Everybody is going to
have a guaranteed benefit under Social Security. We want them also to
have a voluntary option of a new benefit that would help them realize a
greater rate of return.

Q But my question is the tactical one. Do you want lawmakers,
someone on Capitol Hill to produce a plan and come to you? Do you want
to produce -- or you still want to wait months with the President
trying to sell it to the American people first?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't describe it either way, Mark. The way I
would describe it is that the President wants to move forward in a
bipartisan way to talk about how we can solve it. So that's why he's
having discussions with members of Congress. That's why he's having
discussions with the American people. And if you look at The
Washington Post poll that was out this week, it showed 73 percent of
the people thought that it was either a crisis, or it faced major
problems. And so it's very clear to the American people that Social
Security does face some serious challenges, and that we do need to
address it.

The President believes we shouldn't be passing the problem on to
future generations. We should be solving it now. So he will talk with
members of Congress about the best way to proceed forward. He put an
idea out for personal accounts. He mentioned some ideas that were
advocated by Democratic leaders for solving the issue. He said, these
are all on the table; let's talk about how we can move forward together
to solve the problem; I welcome all ideas and I intend to move forward
in a bipartisan way. And that's the best way to approach this issue,
because it is an issue that affects all Americans.

Q Scott, thank you. Some civil liberties groups are criticizing
the tough border control bill passed by the House as a thinly disguised
attempt to demand national identification cards for all Americans.
Does the President support national ID cards?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President supports the legislation that just
passed the House. We sent out a statement of administration policy.
He had previously said that there should be some standards and that we
would work with members of Congress, including Chairman Sensenbrenner,
and they were moving forward on that legislation this week. We put out
a statement of administration policy expressing our support for the
legislation. There are certain aspects of it we'd like to see
addressed as it moves through the process. But you should look at that
statement of administration policy.

Q Scott, the President has said that the only non-negotiable
point in Social Security is a hike in payroll taxes. You talked about
this a little bit on Air Force One yesterday. I just want to make sure
I'm clear. Would raising the cap from $90,000 to, say, $145,000
qualify as a hike in payroll taxes in the eyes of the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would go back to the President's news conference
toward the end of last year. He said there are going to be a number of
ideas expressed by members of Congress. He has expressed his views on
some ideas and about the ways to proceed forward. He's made very clear
what his principles are. But he said, because this is important that we
move forward in a bipartisan way to resolve the matter and to solve the
problem, he's not going to go and get into ruling things in or ruling
things out every time ideas are expressed, because he wants to welcome
all ideas for addressing the issue. But he has made clear what his
principles are.

In terms of the issue of raising the cap, we've previously stated
that it does not solve the fiscal problem facing Social Security, that
Social Security is on an unsustainable course right now. And this only
pushes it out a few more years. The President wants to make Social
Security permanently sound. The promise to today's -- I'm sorry, the
promise to tomorrow's retirees is an empty promise because the system
is unsustainable. It cannot afford to pay the benefits it is promising
to the American people.

That's why the President believes personal accounts are an
important part of the solution. And that will help younger workers, if
they choose -- it's a voluntary option -- to realize a greater rate of
return on their benefit, coupled with the traditional benefit. It's
similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that was outlined.

But right now, you have money being paid into the system to support
today's retirees. So people are not able to set aside money into an
account. There is no account there where your money is being set aside
in Social Security. It's a pay-as-you-go system. Today's workers are
supporting today's retirees. And the number of workers supporting
those retirees is growing smaller, and the number of retirees is
growing larger, because people are living longer. And we've seen, I
think dozens of times, when payroll taxes have been increased to try to
address the matter it has not solved the problem facing Social
Security. The President wants to make it permanently sound and address
it once and for all.

Q I just want to be clear, though. Is a raise in the cap a
raise in payroll taxes?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I want to be clear, too. I mean, the President
stated very publicly, to everybody, that you're going to come in here
-- members of the press corps -- and we understand that's your job to
do, to try to get us to get into talking about various ideas that are
out there. We view that as negotiating with ourselves, and we're not
going to do that. But the President did make very clear what his views
are and what his principles are for going forward. But that's why I
pointed out some of the things that I did in my remarks in response to
your question.

Q Well, I don't want you to negotiate, I just want to be able to
have clear in my mind as I report on Social Security whether or not
when Congress talks about raising the cap, whether that's -- whether
that action is defined by the White House as a --

MR. McCLELLAN: We could go down issue after issue, and you could
ask me what our view is on it. What the President has said is that all
ideas are on the table, with the exception of increasing payroll taxes,
and that we're going to work with members of Congress, listen to their
ideas, and talk about how we can move forward together in a bipartisan
way. The President set the tone for moving forward in this debate, and
he made it very clear that he welcomes all ideas.

Q Would we try to physically prevent any attempt by North Korea to export nuclear weapons?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, say that again?

Q Would we try to physically prevent any attempt by North Korea
to export nuclear weapons?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, proliferation is a top priority for this
administration. The President led the effort to establish the
Proliferation Security Initiative to stop the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and to stop the proliferation of longer-range
missiles and things of that nature. There are some 60 nations that are
working on that effort. It is a top priority for this administration.

We achieved a great success when Libya agreed to dismantle its WMD
programs. And we've achieved an important success when it comes to
dismantling the A.Q. Khan network. And we continue to learn more and
more about that. But proliferation will remain a top priority for this
administration. I previously expressed that we -- that's one of the
concerns we have with regards to North Korea.

Q Scott, in addition to Medicare and Social Security facing
solvency problems, Medicaid also has funding problems. And there's
been talk on the Hill calling for a Medicaid reform commission. Would
the President support the idea of bipartisan commission to reform
Medicaid?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President supports the plan that he outlined
for strengthening Medicaid. And Secretary Leavitt has talked at length
about the importance of addressing some of the loopholes and gimmicks
that are used to double-charge, or to use Medicaid money for purposes
other than what it was intended, and how that's hurting the program.
We want to make sure that governors have as maximum of flexibility as
possible in the Medicaid program so that they can cover as many people
as possible at an affordable cost. And that's what we're moving
forward on. Secretary Leavitt has spoken to this issue, the President
spoke about it in his remarks earlier today, as well. By giving more
flexibility in Medicaid and the S-CHIP program, so that states can
cover those who it was intended to cover, and maybe even cover some
more.

Q And with respect to Social Security solvency and personal
accounts, could you clarify that these are two distinct issues? The
one addresses ownership, and the other long-term solvency, in terms of
whether --

MR. McCLELLAN: They're both part of the solution, is the way the
President views it, because we need to strengthen Social Security for
our children and grandchildren. Right now people in my generation and
younger don't expect to have any retirement benefits from the Social
Security fund when they do retire. And the President wants to help
them build a nest egg of their own.

And that's why personal accounts are so important. It will help
them realize a greater rate of return on their own retirement savings.
It's about trusting in people. It's a philosophical issue. It is
about building an ownership society. We trust in people to make the
right decisions and the best decisions about their future, and the best
decisions about how their money is spent. That's why we want to give
them the voluntary option to realize a greater rate of return on their
own savings, much like federal employees do now, through the Thrift
Savings Plan, which has been a huge success. We're talking about
investing in conservative bonds and stocks. There are safeguards put
in place to the system. The Social Security commission talked about
it. We also need to take steps to make sure Social Security is
permanently sound, and to address the unfunded liability facing Social
Security.

Q But whatever measures the President agrees to go forward with
can address the issue without actually establishing these accounts,
correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, say that again.

Q Whatever measures that the President decides to advance or to
embrace, in terms of addressing the issue of Social Security solvency,
that that can be taken without necessarily establishing these
accounts.

MR. McCLELLAN: Correct. But there's more of a problem facing
Social Security than just that. That's why the President believes we
need to help workers realize a greater rate of return on their savings,
if they so choose, by investing in secure bonds and stocks, and how
that's part of the solution.

Q It's a follow-up on Sarah's question. Mexican authorities are
saying that it's an offense to Mexico, that the President is supporting
a bill who call for the construction of a wall or fence in the border.
What is your response to that? And does the President believe it's a
good idea to have a fence on the border to fight terrorism -- or stop
terrorism coming to the U.S. and illegal immigrants?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President's views are very clear to the
government of Mexico. He has talked about this issue at length with
them. We have taken a number of steps to strengthen enforcement along
our borders. We also need to take steps to address the problem of
illegal immigrants coming to the country to seek a better way of life.
And that's why the President is continuing to urge Congress to move
forward on his temporary worker program, that will address an economic
need and will also show the compassion of America by addressing some of
the issues that affect those who are coming here illegally. It will
also free up our ability to go after those who are coming here for the
wrong reasons.

The President recognizes there are a lot of people coming here
simply to provide for their family and to realize a better way of
life. Now, long-term, that means continuing to expand trade and
improve the quality of life for people in Mexico, so that they have
less desire to come to the United States. But there are also steps we
need to take to address some of the enforcement side of things. And
the President made a commitment to Chairman Sensenbrenner last year
when the intelligence reforms were being discussed that he would work
with him this year, early this year, on some of the issues that he had
brought up during that time period.

Q Does the President support, specifically, construction of the
wall on the border?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that there are different areas that are
addressing the issue, in a number of different ways. And if you look
back at the policy statement that we put out, it talks about the
President's views on the various issues in this legislation. But the
President believes the best way to address the problem of some 8
million illegal immigrants coming to the country to seek work to
provide for their families is to move forward on the proposal that he
outlined, and that he stated very firmly in his State of the Union
address.

And he also went to the Republican retreat in West Virginia and
made it very clear it's important that we move forward on this
program. This is the way to address this issue, and to have a more
humane migration system into the U.S.

Q Can I just try to refine a little further the question about
solvency and the personal accounts. Is it right that the
administration has two goals when it comes to Social Security, and that
they're really separate goals: one is to get the personal accounts,
which the administration is no longer saying is going to secure the
solvency of Social Security. It may do many wonderful things in the
administration's view, but that's not what it does. So you've got that
goal to get the personal accounts.

Then you've got the other goal of trying to secure the solvency of
Social Security, and that's separate. And you have to go down -- maybe
they'll be intertwined in the negotiations, but they are two separate
things; is that right?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it's one goal. And I see someone is leaving
that I'm getting ready to mention here in a minute. (Laughter.) She
can listen to it.

No, it is one goal to strengthen Social Security for our children
and grandchildren. And both of those are part of the solution for
meeting that goal.

Q But the personal accounts are not part of solving the solvency
problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're part of strengthening Social Security, and
that's -- the problem facing Social Security right now is that younger
workers are facing either massive benefit cuts or massive tax increases
if we don't act to address it now. The status quo is massive tax
increases or severe benefit cuts. And that's not a solution. So both
are part of the solution. Yes, personal accounts in and of themselves
do not solve the fiscal problem facing Social Security, but they are
part of the solution for strengthening Social Security for our children
and grandchildren.

And seniors are not going to see any changes. The President will
continue to make that clear, that if you're born before 1950, nothing
will change for you.

Thank you.

One last thing I want to mention, as she unfortunately walked out
of the room because I was talking too long, but maybe she is watching
this right now: Claire Buchan, who has been deputy press secretary
here for the last four years, I've worked very closely with her during
that entire time period, is going on to be chief of staff to the
Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Gutierrez. And I want to extend best
wishes to her from the Press Office -- I'm sure from each of you, as
well.

She has done an outstanding job helping to support the President's
agenda and to work with each of you all. And we will miss her here.
And just from a personal standpoint, I express my deep appreciation to
Claire for all that she did to support me in my role, and personally
wish her all the best.

Q So it is true that Andy Card is telling people to leave?

MR. McCLELLAN: You all have a good weekend. Thank you. (Laughter
and applause.)